9.0 General Discussion

[Makabreska]

If Turalyon and/or Alleria ever become main villains, I hope what defines them the most is not their cosmic powers, but their good intentions. They are good people who only want the best for the world and mankind, so hopefully they don't suffer the fate that Kael'thas or Vashj suffered in TBC or Ner'zhul suffered in WoD. We've had enough wasted villains.

Ye, I dunno about Ner'zhul intentions but one of his last acts was to intentionally destroy Dreonor, so fk that guy. And I was against bringing back so many villains in SL, but it's nice seeing Kael forced to face his past actions.

[Varodoc]

Ye, I dunno about Ner'zhul intentions but one of his last acts was to intentionally destroy Dreonor, so fk that guy. And I was against bringing back so many villains in SL, but it's nice seeing him forced to face his past actions.

Ner'zhul was a fundamentally good man who wanted to save his village from annihilation. Ner'zhul was not a warmonger. He joined the Iron Horde because the only other "option" was annihilation at the hands of the Iron Horde. He lost his mind trying to weaponize the Void, but he would've never even meddled with it had it not been for the Iron Horde's ultimatum.

What is especially frustrating is that Grommash ultimately ends up getting redemption, while Ner'zhul dies as a broken and lonely villain. When the very reason why he lost the right path is because Grommash threatened him with extinction.

I meant AU Ner'zhul, of course. But I guess you could say that MU Ner'zhul was also a victim of manipulation, first of Kil'jaeden, and then of the Jailer.

Expecting politeness from people with which your main beef is a lack of politeness is just plain irrational.


That's a hypothesis, not a theory. It's also not really confirmed by this, since there's plenty of real people in real world situations that can't manage to be polite to anybody, strangers included. Reportedly, one of them is a head of state.


I fail to see how that has anything to do with politeness. Unless you define polite as "immediately conceding to me in a discussion".

No, I define "Polite" as "Not conveniently cutting the entire explanation and belittling the other's arguments with words such as nonsense, and ad-hominems like delusional".

When I reply to people I N-E-V-E-R cut off the entire explanation and write short one liners like "lol ur delusional", because that's disrespectful and useless.

[Nagawithlegs]

The Jailer being a boring villain is not a problem so long as Sylvanas sticks around till the end. She has enough hate behind her and enough buildup to carry pretty muc hthe entire expansion alone as far as being villainous goes, the Jailer can just be the powerhouse behind her giving her power and being the ultimate antagonist.

So in short: The Jailer can be boring, but only if someone else can carry the investment from the players, which right now is Sylvanas.

Right. Which I think is honestly clever, as they (at the expense of BFA's story quality imo) built up Sylvanas as an extremely hated both IC/OOC villain for both story and meta reasons (durr devs won't let her lose!!! reee) in order for her to serve as the emotional cornerstone of the bad guy team. At the same time they can introduce a brand new character who fits into a big hole in the cosmology. The launch plot for SL looks very solid except for, imo, Thrall and Baine being there and Voss being completely missing (the one Horde character besides maybe Lor who should even be there in the first place).

It absolutely should've been Lor'themar and Voss (with Calia) instead of Thrall and Baine, but you just know "OG" Horde players would cry.

I think Sylvanas will die slightly before the Jailer is beaten (maybe a single patch) and at that time the Jailer will have more lore revealed for him so that he feels personal for the last raid. They are very coy about his story, as well as the other Eternal Ones, in the launch story so you can expect a lot of it in the patches (also see the HUGE Nathrezim reveal that is coming up). I also refuse to believe both the Jailer and Sylvanas will be raid bosses in the same raid as it would be like having Gul'dan and Kil'jaeden in the same raid.

[huth]

No, I define "Polite" as "Not conveniently cutting the entire explanation and belittling the other's arguments with words such as nonsense, and ad-hominems like delusional".

When I reply to people I N-E-V-E-R cut off the entire explanation and write short one liners like "lol ur delusional", because that's disrespectful and useless.

Which just bloats your posts since you quote a lot of stuff you don't even respond to. Which IMO is quite impolite in itself since it makes the posts harder to read for others.

[Varodoc]

Which just bloats your posts since you quote a lot of stuff you don't even respond to. Which IMO is quite impolite in itself since it makes the posts harder to read for others.

I have never done that, but you seem to have beef with me for some reason. Even now you are trying to frame me as the flamer when someone literally ignored my entire post and called me delusional without giving any other argument. Yet you are bothering ME for some reason. It's clear you are biased against me for some reason.

27.000 and you don't even know good manners. Very sad.

[huth]

I have never done that, but you seem to have beef with me for some reason. Even now you are trying to frame me as the flamer when someone literally ignored my entire post and called me delusional without giving any other argument. Yet you are bothering ME for some reason. It's clear you are biased against me for some reason.

27.000 and you don't even know good manners. Very sad.

You just did it with my post, quoting the entire thing while only responding to the last third. Also, you keep inventing ways people have supposedly slighted you that do not agree with a cursory examination of reality. Nobody is trying to frame you as anything. You're making a fool of yourself all on your own.

[Sondrelk]

Right. Which I think is honestly clever, as they (at the expense of BFA's story quality imo) built up Sylvanas as an extremely hated both IC/OOC villain for both story and meta reasons (durr devs won't let her lose!!! reee) in order for her to serve as the emotional cornerstone of the bad guy team. At the same time they can introduce a brand new character who fits into a big hole in the cosmology. The launch plot for SL looks very solid except for, imo, Thrall and Baine being there and Voss being completely missing (the one Horde character besides maybe Lor who should even be there in the first place).

It absolutely should've been Lor'themar and Voss (with Calia) instead of Thrall and Baine, but you just know "OG" Horde players would cry.

I think Sylvanas will die slightly before the Jailer is beaten (maybe a single patch) and at that time the Jailer will have more lore revealed for him so that he feels personal for the last raid. They are very coy about his story, as well as the other Eternal Ones, in the launch story so you can expect a lot of it in the patches (also see the HUGE Nathrezim reveal that is coming up). I also refuse to believe both the Jailer and Sylvanas will be raid bosses in the same raid as it would be like having Gul'dan and Kil'jaeden in the same raid.

Barring a Sylvanas encounter in the final raid I imagine the perfect time to defeat Sylvanas would be in whatever 9.3 pre-raid questline, possibly as the culmination of several Covenant stories, Night Fae especially.
Then after that just have the final raid be about the Jailer attaining ultimate power, or destroying the universe or whatever.

[Varodoc]

You just did it with my post, quoting the entire thing while only responding to the last third. Also, you keep inventing ways people have supposedly slighted you that do not agree with a cursory examination of reality. Nobody is trying to frame you as anything. You're making a fool of yourself all on your own.

I'm not taking an obvious political bait haha.

That's a hypothesis, not a theory. It's also not really confirmed by this, since there's plenty of real people in real world situations that can't manage to be polite to anybody, strangers included. Reportedly, one of them is a head of state.

If anything, you're the only one making a fool of yourself, as you pretty much start trouble with me whenever you can. Like when you asked me to give my speculation on a certain whisper, then dismissed it as baseless assumptions.

Now I see how you grinded 27.000 posts, you pretty much act like Devil's advocate in discussions that don't concern you at all.

[Nagawithlegs]

Barring a Sylvanas encounter in the final raid I imagine the perfect time to defeat Sylvanas would be in whatever 9.3 pre-raid questline, possibly as the culmination of several Covenant stories, Night Fae especially.
Then after that just have the final raid be about the Jailer attaining ultimate power, or destroying the universe or whatever.

I would honestly be shocked if Sylvanas doesn't have a raid boss fight considering they went as far as to make everyone hate her with the Bolvar beatdown, but it may be the only way they can let "loyalist" players/fans not have to kill her.

They could also have her "ENOUGH" but then have Arthas/Bolvar/Tyrande/Jailer/Terenas??/Mankrik's Wife kill her or imprison her in a cutscene. Memes aside I am assuming Bolvar/Arthas will work together to imprison her.

[Raetary]

Maw would be fitting zone to promote on election day.

Very fitting indeed.

[Ersula]

I would honestly be shocked if Sylvanas doesn't have a raid boss fight considering they went as far as to make everyone hate her with the Bolvar beatdown, but it may be the only way they can let "loyalist" players/fans not have to kill her.

Maybe. But remember we also had fights against Jaina & Azshara & nothing happened to them

Since they keep hinting that they want to rehabilitate Arthas' character, the theory that Ner'zhul, Arthas & Sylvanas are reluctant minions of the jailer seems to be implied, especially with what the Kyrian campaign claims about the Mawsworn: But I was wondering "Undead Ner'zhul doesn't really seem like an appealing minion. He's just a frozen suit of armor...." but then here's this variety of mawsworn we see in the Maw preview: Oh okay, was he a giant Crystal Behemoth that got destroyed in his final battle?

[Lahis]

Very fitting indeed.

Yup.

[KainneAbsolute]

Why the Jailer, the most evil being, was given charge of the most evil souls? Really the rest of Eternals did not expect that he would get a army of prisoners?

[Ersula]

Why the Jailer, the most evil being, was given charge of the most evil souls? Really the rest of Eternals did not expect that he would get a army of prisoners?

The Maw is not natural: It was a prison created specifically to house the Jailer. It's not that he was put in charge of them, but that any souls that ended up there would also be confined with him & subject to his machinations simply because the Jailer is such a powerful being. Apparently the Jailer discovered he could gain those souls compliance through torture.

Perhaps the Maw was empty until the Jailer learned how to extend his influence into the realm of the living through the Lich King

[Sondrelk]

Why the Jailer, the most evil being, was given charge of the most evil souls? Really the rest of Eternals did not expect that he would get a army of prisoners?

The Jailer is in fact imprisoned there, his link to his minions are very vague, but from how the Primus talks about it, the implication I get is that the Jailer didnt always have control over the denizens of the Maw until fairly recently, or at least not enough to do much more than torture them.

Whether the Jailer was given "control" of the Maw before or after he was imprisoned is also left up to debate.

The specific words the Primus uses is that "[The Jailer] has fashioned his chains into weapons."

[huth]

I'm not taking an obvious political bait haha.


If anything, you're the only one making a fool of yourself, as you pretty much start trouble with me whenever you can. Like when you asked me to give my speculation on a certain whisper, then dismissed it as baseless assumptions.

So you still haven't understood what i was saying back then. I didn't dismiss your speculation. I dismissed your claim that it was "straight-forward".

And that certain somebody was simply a counterexample to your hypothesis. There's a reason i didn't name them.

[InfiniteCharger]

The Jailer is in fact imprisoned there, his link to his minions are very vague, but from how the Primus talks about it, the implication I get is that the Jailer didnt always have control over the denizens of the Maw until fairly recently, or at least not enough to do much more than torture them.

Whether the Jailer was given "control" of the Maw before or after he was imprisoned is also left up to debate.

The specific words the Primus uses is that "[The Jailer] has fashioned his chains into weapons."

His name is the jailer.

[Nagawithlegs]

The Jailer is in fact imprisoned there, his link to his minions are very vague, but from how the Primus talks about it, the implication I get is that the Jailer didnt always have control over the denizens of the Maw until fairly recently, or at least not enough to do much more than torture them.

The way that the Jailer tortures people into his service and has an army of inmates kind of strengthens the "gang" thing going on with him, even his shirtless look with tattoos has a prison theme.

I think the glowing eyes are a disservice to his design though (even if they have a lore reason, like him being a world soul) as they make him look dopier.

[Sondrelk]

His name is the jailer.

Whose name is what now?

The Jailer's name is Zovaal, whereas we do not know the name of the Primus.

If you are talking about the bracketed [The Jailer] that is because the actual quote is "He has fashioned his chains into weapons." In which case changin "he" to whatever the character is called makes reading it easier.

[Eurhetemec]

1) All the arguments I have made are backed by the source material, as I proved many times. No one so far has even managed to disprove a single thing I said. So Yes, I will get angry when someone intentionally cuts my argumentation every time they reply to me just to basically call me a retard.
2) If the only reason why you reply to someone is to mock them, it is YOU who should put that person on ignore, so that you can try to stop spewing insults left and right. Maybe then you can learn some politeness.
3) I suppose it's too hard to ask for the people in this thread to NOT mock and use ad-hominems. Good manners are a thing of the real world it seems, not MMO-Champion.

Tell me, is that hard to say "I understand your point, but I think undead are immune because..." as opposed to "I'm not even going to read your explanation, you clearly don't know anything, you are delusional, bye"? Sometimes I wonder if people on this forum have actual conversations with other people irl...

You don't consistently make rational arguments, Varodoc, let alone ones "backed by source material" (you almost never link to any support for your claims). You make far-reaching claims and you insult and belittle anyone who tries to politely disagree with you, so your "OMG everyone is so rude!" point is pretty amazingly hypocritical. There's an old adage about how if you meet a jerk now and then, they're probably jerks, but if everyone but you seems to be a jerk, maybe look in the mirror. And you certainly seem to think we're all jerks. You characterise disagreement with your wild claims as ad hominem attacks, even when it's very clearly disagreement.

And no, it's not reasonable, ever, to ask other people to put you on ignore, let alone to demand it, as you did. You're a hypocrit to ask that. You think you're better than other people, we get that, but no-one else needs to act on that basis.

Nor is it reasonable to demand people argue with every point you make individually. Many of them are so ridiculous as to not even merit a response (because you claim them as facts, but provide little evidence/rationale as to why they should be considered such), and further, a lot of the argumentation you use it is itself so broken that it warrants criticism - but again, you regard criticism of bad arguments as ad hominem attacks.